Stanford Wine Society:
5 events this term, 2 large-scale tasting, 2 small-scale tasting, 1 kick off event. Majority of funding is alcohol, some for crackers. BYOB majority of events. Mostly members only group, but during the week of the event 20% of tickets are released when grad announce email goes out. Going to be 25 people for each large tasting, small tastings are going to be 12 people. Only 3 spots for non-members. Request for 5 events, but since some were “recurring events”, only recommended 3 events, for $646 in total recommendation. Trevor asks if they are going to fund recurring events, they say not sure yet. trevor asks why event is so small? She says some are because trying to limit attendance so 25 people can enjoy 2 bottles of wine, if they have more people then need more bottles of wine. Membership is $30 a term. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Native american grad students:
Working with stanford native american law students to put together conference on contemporary issues in Indian law. All day conference, will have 4 panels and keynote speaker talking about indian law that is changing right now. Also picked areas that are applicable to legal landscape that are not constrained to native community. Things that impact wider range of communities. Recommendation for $2400, more than enough matching funds for honorarium. Requested $1000 honorarium, mostly toward travel for speakers, $1100 for food, toward lunch costs, $300 for event services fee. Free for all students, trying to advertise broadly in Stanford community for UGs and grads. Doing a crash course evening before on Indian law for people who are interested. Ashveer asks if they have anybody from archaeology center there, she says no but Karen has sent out flyers to different departments. David asks if they asked for money from UGs? They applied to Native American center, and have asked different native american groups, ASSU speakers bureau, but not the UG senate. Trevor reminds them about putting GSC logo on their flyers. Voting, passes unanimously.
stanford Youth Cultural exchange initiative
Aims to enhance cultural exchange between local families who have asian backgrounds, especially those who have adopted chinese children, now have a celebration of Chinese new year activities, scheduled on Feb 8. Applying for $500 in total, split in $300 food (going to have about 20 family members and 10 grad students), and also $200 for event supplies under the line of event services. For stationary supplies for crafts, like paper crayons scissors etc. Will first have dinner, then will tell traditional stories to local families, then have craft making activities for children. Recommendation is for $500. Adrienne asks about the Stanford affiliation. They say that families are from the Bay Area, the group is considered as a community service group. Petr asks how they find families. They have a mailing list from prev years. They are also working with an organization called FCC (families with children from China). Voting, passes unanimously.
Requesting transfer of $150 from event that was already funded to go to Rhythms event, which is primarily UG event but SIA is taking part in it. 2-3 hr dance session, budget is $8k-$10k, and they are only asking for $150. Graduate students can attend and are going to participate. Ashveer says they didn’t send to Center for South Asia. Passes unanimously.
Holding Hot Pot dinner on Feb 22. expect 50 grad students to show up, based on prev years, request $725 in total. $700 food, $25 for event services. Hot pot is when you put raw food into hot pot with water. Expect people from all over the world to join, mostly grad students will attend. Recommendation was for $725. Voting, passes unanimously. Ben suggests we buy a hot pot for the GSC.
Eduardo! Representing interest for minority students in Bio. Having Lunar New Year celebration event, on Feb 7 LKSC 101, 7pm. Going to serve explanations for LNY traditions, will have red envelopes, will have people come up and discuss traditions they have in family, will have people make bookmarks, etc. Expecting about 70 ppl, requesting $350 for food, haven’t posted it to any lists yet, wants recommendations. Recommendation is for $350. Voting passes unanimously apart from Eduardo who abstains.
Ashveer talks about Anthro Housing letter
Wants university to make accommodation for housing students who come back from field work trips. Students must have maintained housing the entire time. Thinks the university will say that it is unfair, but since the GSC supports it, this means all grad students support it. This is just the beginning of efforts. Trevor thinks title is fine, but also wants some statement that says that we would do this for any department who requires that their students go abroad, to avoid claims of favoritism. Ashveer is fine with that. Ashveer is going to amend it to say just “field work that requires travel outside of the Bay area”, or “requires the students to lose housing”. Adrienne asks about the Masters students. Meredith asks who is funding housing during field work trips. Ashveer says that department will help if they can’t find a grant for it. Final summary: passing resolution requesting university to make either an exception to one quarter sublease, or to grant guaranteed housing to anthro PhD students for whom their field work takes them outside of campus housing, and we are also saying that students should not lose their housing if they are doing what is required of them. Voting today because Anthro faculty meeting on Monday. Suspending the rules, passes unanimously. Rules suspended. Adrienne wants a clarification on “dissertation”. Ashveer says they cannot start writing a dissertation until they come back from their trip and have ABD status (all but dissertation). Adrienne says that all area departments do field work, so it is good motion. Petr asks if it is only field work that forces them off campus. Adrienne says that they do archival research. Petr asks if “field work” is all encompassing word, or can mean different things. Adrienne says historian field work is not called “field work”. Trevor says that this aims specifically for anthro grad students, if we need to do this for other grad departments then can pass another resolution. Provides a framework for next year’s GSC. Voting, unanimously passes except for Ashveer who abstains. Reinstating the rules of order.
Potential councilmembers introduce themselves. Targeting cases such as executive power overreach. Total is 5 people, 4 vacancies. Petr wants them to explain more detail what they do. Generally they are an overseeing body like a “judicial” committee. One example is at return of ROTC few years ago, question about whether a straw poll can be done by the executives. Fairly rare occurrence. David asks who can bring a case to them. They say either GSC or UGS can vote to convene. They are also going to meet quarterly to review major amendments that are happening to the constitution (UGs want to change reserves). David asks about what background they have in dealing with constitution. First member has past experience in student council. Second spends time on Stanford prelaw society, knows what checks and balances are. Milton has worked with ASSU UG senate before, in different capacities. Paul asks who they think can file a case. They say generally will come from one of two legislative bodies. But they might review it if a regular student comes to them. Paul asks if they think they can, independently of anyone bringing a case, review the constitutionality of something that is passed by the legislatives. Paul asks if they might be advising the senate on constitutional amendments even before they have been passed yet. They say yes. Paul asks why there are 4 vacancies? They say it’s been a while since it’s been active, and people graduated. Paul says he is concerned about Ashton-Gallagher bringing forward something that might lead to constitutionality concerns and is appointing them to prepare for it. They say they just want to bring back a part of the government that hasn’t existed for awhile. Trevor asks the bigger question is if they can vote against the execs. Paul asks if that, during interview, they actually talked about how they will discuss disputes. They say no, but up to them because have no precedence. Milton says almost hopes something happens so that they have a role. Eduardo says that he is concerned that there is not complete awareness for a pathway for a common student to submit an appeal. If there is no formal process, what is the mechanism to make it more formal? Shouldn’t it be voted into this council? They say they have no idea about precedence, so it’s up in the air right now. Eduardo says wants them to work with GSC to make the process formal. Paul says there are rules of order for the constitutional council. Just as a side note, voting “no” in this aspect does not entail a “nay” against the bill, but just because the GSC wants to wait until the 4th person shows up next week. Voting, all in favor 4, 5 against, 1 abstaining. Bill does not pass this week.
Hunter’s Bill about Date for Elections
All in favor of approving spring elections schedule: unanimously passes!
Nom Com Bill
Appointing nominee on committee on UG standards and policies: Jessica Zhao, freshman. We are just voting Jessica in for this position. Voting, passes unanimously.
Green Store Bill
First bill: give Green Store joint service status. Voting, passes unanimously.
Compost Bin/Waste Bags Bill
Sam asks if it’s just for grad students living on campus? Yes, but Adrienne asked her about it. First pass is just on campus, so that there’s data for the university regarding compost. Voting, passes unanimously.
Ben’s equipment Bill
Bill for outdoor projection equipment purchase. Outdoor proj screen, sound system, and cable. Total $525ish. Voting passes unanimously.
Presentation Tutorials for Departments
Raj: his friend told him about a presentation tutorial that she gives. She wants to get involved with grad students, want to bring it to departments. Just wanted to get the word out, find people who are willing to take it to their departments. Raj Bhandari: email@example.com. If anyone interested, reach out to Raj.
Joint Event Clarification for Funding Committee
Recent example of Chinese NY Gala: Chinese Women’s Collective average attendance is much lower than what they asked for in joint application with ACSSS. Thinks maybe they need stricter rules when have events between groups which have highly overlapping interests/populations. Initial reasoning behind the joint event rules is for not overlapping interests. Want to discourage groups which have overlapping group membership. They say it is something that can be taken advantage of. Eduardo says we are not really able to enforce it. Trevor says need to be unique members, can’t we just change wording? Petr says if have large events, then don’t we want to encourage this? Meredith says there could be / might have already happened that there are events which they took advantage of this. Eduardo says the problem with leaving it up to us to decide whether or not two groups have overlapping memberships is that we are not a good judge of that. Trevor says maybe we can just audit the large joint events every year. Trevor thinks joint events are generally cultural groups.
Petr met with Nanci Howe, talked about Frost. Cathy was sitting in the meeting too. SAL not pleased with discussion between Ateeq and ppl who organize Frost. Didn’t like that, according to data, there were lots of grad students at Frost. They quoted a figure of up to 1000 grad students last year. It was an event that grad students took advantage of and also took a lot of money. They got the impression that the discussion between grads and UGs on SCN broke down on one point, which is alcohol. Supposedly alcohol funding is the key point for funding between the UGs and Grads. This is what has been communicated to them as to how the discussion went. They are confused and a bit displeased with the idea that we would fund an event only if there is alcohol present. Supposedly they are asking for a few thousand dollars (maybe up to $5k). Nanci is displeased because the entire event costs something like up to $100k. Even though it is a sizeable amount, it’s a small amount when compared to the whole thing. Seems like overall GSC sentiment is that we didn’t say the alcohol was a condition for the funding, but that we suggests alcohol will encourage grad student attendance. Bryce wants Petr to communicate back that all we care about is the attendance and that we merely think that booze would encourage grad student attendance. Petr says that he thinks Nanci wants to say that, there are always going to be events which are alcohol-free, but we can plan a pre-party we are free to do it. Chairs want to do a pre-party using discretionary funds.
Jessica Piper (firstname.lastname@example.org), CA at Lyman
Setting up concert for singer/songwriter Diane Cluck. GSPB giving them $300. Open to all grad students, at Lyman atrium. Lyman putting in $200. Wants some money for food, maybe $200 from GSC. attendance could be 100-150 total. Talked about cosponsoring with different neighborhoods. Voting for $200 from discretionary toward this concert. Voting, passes unanimously.
Mike suggests that the 800 char description be for how the event will benefit grad students. Adrienne doesn’t like the word “enhance” =(. She wants a neutral word. Trevor says we will rank them by voting, and we will take all events up to $30k. Can pass another bill to fund the last event that passes $30k from buffer. Petr says that, if he has a project, regardless of the voting scenario that we come up with, none of it will change his mind about the project. Eduardo asks if we are helping them organize the event, or is burden on the person? Trevor says we can help them since we are providing money to them. Trevor wants approval voting: example, if you have 10 options, you have a scale of 1-5, and you rate each event from 1-5 depending on how much you like the event. You aggregate the votes at the end to see which one is the highest. Timeline, one month for project submissions and 1 week for voting?
State of Association
“What has the GSC done?” Make a summary of what you’ve done and send it to Trevor. QUICK. It’s next week.
Funding for Farah
Petr has 2 questions: #1, have we exhausted all options? #2 Adrienne’s point is spot-on, so while GSC shouldn’t do anything specifically to do help her, but it does raise an interesting question about whether or not there are other students in this situation?
Closed Session: Voting on SSE-CEO Confirmation
Voting: passes unanimously.